|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: LGBT (Anglican) clergy: useful idiots?
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think the point is that anyone can describe themselves as inclusive, even if others don't really see it that way.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I guess churches can be inclusive of LGBT people in the way medieval society was inclusive of lepers. They had a place, sure, but it was on the fringes. Likewise you can get the 'we are all children of God, all are welcome' stuff, along with 'but we don't really approve of your lifestyle. Sure you can come - the Church excludes no one - but please could you stand at the back, don't bring your partner, or even refer to him, and don't make a fuss.'
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I visited a CofE church yesterday which had a prominent poster up about being an 'inclusive church'. It's also going to be having a special service for Gay Pride Week. There were a couple of other notices too that emphasised its position. Is this kind of deliberate and explicit policy rare in CofE congregations?
Individual churches are one thing, but as an institution, it seems that the CofE is hampered by trying to be all things to all men. I suppose that worked when society was dominated by more or less conservative social and personal values, but it's very problematic now that even Christians disagree about these things. Perhaps the CofE needs to narrow its appeal and become more like the American Episcopal Church. I don't know how this would happen, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I visited a CofE church yesterday which had a prominent poster up about being an 'inclusive church'. It's also going to be having a special service for Gay Pride Week. There were a couple of other notices too that emphasised its position. Is this kind of deliberate and explicit policy rare in CofE congregations?
I don't know. But it would be extremely rare in Baptist churches, less rare in URC ones!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Joesaphat: 'Inclusive' has become a meaningless term in the church. Who's not inclusive?
Er, I can think of plenty of people in church who are not inclusive.
So can I, but would they think of themselves as such? I cannot think of any parish who does not think it's inclusive though I know of petty who, IMV, are sorely mistaken.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Surely "inclusive" and "affirming" are code words, which will say something to the constituency they are aiming to reach?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That's what I was thinking too. Why use such words only to confuse people? Surely that just adds problems to church life.
My assumption is that the CofE congregations mentioned above use such language not so much to appeal to a constituency that they want to reach in evangelistic terms, but in order to benefit from good PR more generally. It's about the state church wanting to be all things to all men, having a benign image, not really about church growth.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm not sure I agree ... I do think that the words are there to "strike a chord" with the LGBT constituency and say, "You'll be OK here". If others choose to interpret them differently, it's fine.
There are other "code words" too. One you often find in Baptist churches is "Bible believing" which implies a certain form of Evangelical approach. "Family friendly" could be another.
And don't even get me started on "vibrant" ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) .
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Joesaphat and Bibaculus seem to disagree, though.
Re 'vibrant', I see that as a secular, lefty, urban, PC word that means 'multicultural'. What does it mean in church-speak?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Joesaphat and Bibaculus seem to disagree, though.
Re 'vibrant', I see that as a secular, lefty, urban, PC word that means 'multicultural'. What does it mean in church-speak?
Not sure we do, just talking. yes, the Baptist's right: 'non-inclusive' is hardly as selling advert. It's code, as was said, but mostly meaningless to me, as is 'Bible-believing.' Well yes, who isn't?
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, in that case, most of our labels are meaningless; we can all claim to be 'Fundamentalists', etc.!
'Non-inclusivity' obviously emphasises a negative rather than a positive, which most churches would rather not do, but there are Christians who embrace their exclusivity, even to the extent of using the term in their name ('Exclusive Brethren').
In reality, I think labels can be very useful to ordinary Christians who don't want to quibble about language or etymology but just want to find an appropriate spiritual home. But it doesn't help if congregations pretend to be something they're not.
As for the OP, I get the impression that the CofE's 'useful idiots' are different people depending on the circumstances. The conservative evangelicals are 'useful idiots' to the extent that they fill the pews and the coffers; that doesn't mean they can get the rest of the CofE to agree with them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Re 'vibrant', I see that as a secular, lefty, urban, PC word that means 'multicultural'. What does it mean in church-speak?
Upbeat worship music, informal and "dynamic" preaching, lots of young people, multimedia being used ...
Again, though, it's a code word to say, "Our church is alive and 'where it's at' - not atall like the dead, formal and stuffy church down the road. Of course you'll want to join us: what's not to like?"
[ 18. May 2016, 18:24: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Ah, of course.
Well, if 'the church down the road' disapproves of the 'vibrant' identity then I suppose it can always come up with an even more wonderful label for itself.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I agree about the 'code word' thing. 'inclusive' and 'affirming' are, I suppose, meant to be a bit like a rainbow flag in a pub window. Well, maybe not quite like that, but you know what I mean. The idea is you know what you will get before you walk through the door.
And clearly people go for positive code words and slogans. Reform says it is 'promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ by reforming the Church of England'. The Protestant Truth Society stands for 'The Truth Upheld'.
The question is, are the code words more than words?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
And another piece of evidence: even very conservative evangelicals, la creme de la creme of synodical evangelicalism, can write in their letter of threat: 'We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction that they experience.'
If you accept the welcome, however, your very presence becomes a validation of the theology of the people you associate with, or does it not? I cannot count the times the 'biblically living' gay guys of Living Out have been used in arguments in recent debates in the CofE.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
Yes even the very conservative evangelicals feel the need to nod the head to what pretty much the entire civilised world takes for granted. It is a ritual formula, of course. They probably say things like 'Of course I have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my best friends are homosexual.'
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Yes even the very conservative evangelicals feel the need to nod the head to what pretty much the entire civilised world takes for granted. It is a ritual formula, of course. They probably say things like 'Of course I have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my best friends are homosexual.'
Worse: gay people worship here with us.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Yes even the very conservative evangelicals feel the need to nod the head to what pretty much the entire civilised world takes for granted. It is a ritual formula, of course. They probably say things like 'Of course I have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my best friends are homosexual.'
Worse: gay people worship here with us.
Oh noes!!! The horror, the impurity!!!!!
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And another piece of evidence: even very conservative evangelicals, la creme de la creme of synodical evangelicalism, can write in their letter of threat: 'We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction that they experience.'
If you accept the welcome, however, your very presence becomes a validation of the theology of the people you associate with, or does it not? I cannot count the times the 'biblically living' gay guys of Living Out have been used in arguments in recent debates in the CofE.
The gay people you mention are involved in public discussions presumably because they approve of the way of life their conservative church calls them to. They're only 'idiots' if you believe their theology makes them so, but presumably they serve a 'useful' role in ensuring that other gay people who believe and live differently won't mistakenly join a church whose teachings would be unpalatable.
And to be fair, although most churches use the language of being 'welcoming', the reality is always that some churches will be more welcoming to some people than others, for whatever reason. You can't really expect a 'conservative evangelical' church to be as tolerant of the things that a liberal church would be. That would be a contradiction.
It's unfortunate if you live in an area that doesn't offer a choice of churches, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And another piece of evidence: even very conservative evangelicals, la creme de la creme of synodical evangelicalism, can write in their letter of threat: 'We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction that they experience.'
If you accept the welcome, however, your very presence becomes a validation of the theology of the people you associate with, or does it not? I cannot count the times the 'biblically living' gay guys of Living Out have been used in arguments in recent debates in the CofE.
The gay people you mention are involved in public discussions presumably because they approve of the way of life their conservative church calls them to. They're only 'idiots' if you believe their theology makes them so, but presumably they serve a 'useful' role in ensuring that other gay people who believe and live differently won't mistakenly join a church whose teachings would be unpalatable.
And to be fair, although most churches use the language of being 'welcoming', the reality is always that some churches will be more welcoming to some people than others, for whatever reason. You can't really expect a 'conservative evangelical' church to be as tolerant of the things that a liberal church would be. That would be a contradiction.
It's unfortunate if you live in an area that doesn't offer a choice of churches, though.
yes, they are idiots because they're poster boys for a brand of theology that is deeply patriarchal and homophobic.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
.....and of course this thread is about clergy, who can't just wander off down the road if they feel like it. No religious supermarket.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
.....and of course this thread is about clergy, who can't just wander off down the road if they feel like it. No religious supermarket.
Not sure I know what you mean, I'm part of the clergy. If you mean it's difficult to leave, I'll applaud, otherwise, care to clarify?
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
.....and of course this thread is about clergy, who can't just wander off down the road if they feel like it. No religious supermarket.
Not sure I know what you mean, I'm part of the clergy. If you mean it's difficult to leave, I'll applaud, otherwise, care to clarify?
I was addressing Svitlana's idea that those who don't like something can just go down the road. Less easy, almost impossible, in fact, for clergy.
So yes, I do just mean that the ease of leaving varies according to your role in the current situation. Of course, being clergy doesn't mean that you're entirely in control, but it does mean that you are far more closely identified with a particular situation.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
My above post was mostly about the laity, but there are clergy who've switched denominations. Most of the mainstream, tolerant churches would be very pleased to have a well-educated, experienced CofE minister; they all seem to have shortages of clergy.
It doesn't seem common these days for CofE ministers to switch, though. I assume this is partly because pay and conditions are better in the CofE. Also, Nonconformity fails to benefit from its more tolerant attitudes towards LGBT issues simply because it's suffered steep decline, both in numbers and vigour. I think Anglicans, for all their internal squabbles, value the prominence of their institution. Or maybe they just see the others as fairly irrelevant.
As for most of the newer churches, they're too evangelical for most LGBT Anglican clergy. Their personality and skill set requirements are also somewhat different.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Actually, Svitlana, I think you'll find that many or most -- perhaps all - anglican clergy have theological differences with the church down the street, whether presbyterian, methodist, or whatever. They're not all interchangeable...there are actually differences that mean something to at least one side of any division.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
You're right of course, but CofE clergy also disagree with each other a lot of the time, and sometimes even with their creeds. Yet they still choose to stay in the denomination rather than switching to another.
Moreover, in the old days it was doable to start your own movement if you believed that the available options were in theological error. Secularisation seems to have made that a less reasonable career option. I think it's also rendered sexuality in the church a kind of post-theological issue; it's treated more as a human rights issue. You don't need to be a Christian to have an opinion on what the church should do about it, so it's not a good basis for a specifically Christian movement.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're right of course, but CofE clergy also disagree with each other a lot of the time, and sometimes even with their creeds. Yet they still choose to stay in the denomination rather than switching to another.
Moreover, in the old days it was doable to start your own movement if you believed that the available options were in theological error. Secularisation seems to have made that a less reasonable career option. I think it's also rendered sexuality in the church a kind of post-theological issue; it's treated more as a human rights issue. You don't need to be a Christian to have an opinion on what the church should do about it, so it's not a good basis for a specifically Christian movement.
I have made this point before on this thread. For some people, sacramentality and authority are important - ie they need a church with bishops. That limits your options to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglicanism. Some would be even more limited. Not everyone has the mindset that if your church happens not to be to your liking in one particular respect, you are free to find another.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I have made this point before on this thread. For some people, sacramentality and authority are important - ie they need a church with bishops. That limits your options to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglicanism...
And Nordic and Baltic Lutheranism, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church of Portugal.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I have made this point before on this thread. For some people, sacramentality and authority are important - ie they need a church with bishops. That limits your options to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglicanism...
And Nordic and Baltic Lutheranism, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church of Portugal.
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
So they are. I was thinking of them in terms of the Porvoo Communion. Good spot!
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
So they are. I was thinking of them in terms of the Porvoo Communion. Good spot!
I was thinking of England, which is the context of the OP (a Church of England priest). Nordic Lutherans and the like are thin on the ground round here.
[ 19. August 2016, 15:08: Message edited by: Bibaculus ]
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
So they are. I was thinking of them in terms of the Porvoo Communion. Good spot!
I was thinking of England, which is the context of the OP (a Church of England priest). Nordic Lutherans and the like are thin on the ground round here.
Yea, my Norwegian's a tad rusty.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The Scandinavian Lutheran churches have bishops, and they're also liberal on matters of sexuality.
It might be possible for one of these denominations to set up branches in the UK, if there were British clergy who invited them to do so. This option might be attractive to some Anglicans if the CofE becomes more evangelical.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
